|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 11 2022 10:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. At least once, possibly on multiple times the thread did engage in a pretty thorough debating of such issues. In a vacuum, again, fair enough. Things are cyclical and discussions will tread multiple times over. In this instance after what Plasmid posted, is that the time? IMO no, there’s no real ‘fuck you’ to it. Let’s say someone had shared an experience of being sexually assaulted, and the next post is ‘yeah but what about people wrongfully accused?’ I mean yes, that’s a topic worthy of discussion, at some point, but coming directly after really smacks of minimising or deflecting from their particular experience.
I agree with the essence of your post but this is also the politics thread
For sharing personal experiences and exchanging condolences it would be more appropriate to post in Blogs
|
On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech.
By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor.
|
United States43625 Posts
On March 11 2022 13:55 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 11 2022 11:45 gobbledydook wrote:On March 11 2022 08:51 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. It was exceedingly tone-deaf to pivot onto bathroom bans and trans-women in sports from plasmidghost's post on trans people basically having their rights erased. If you'd like to discuss that instead, I would be curious as to what your take is. It's of course extremely wrong to pretend that transgender people don't have rights. I thought there was no point in debating that. There are unfortunately still people who believe that trans people are really just mentally ill or believe that children are being misled into identifying as trans by their woke teachers and parents. There's nothing better we can do other than call them out for their ignorance or malice. To be honest, when you mentioned that whole "what about women who don't want to see penises in their bathroom, shouldn't we respect those women" question, I was having trouble figuring out whether or not you felt that was a reasonable concern. It's not a reasonable concern, as many people explained earlier, and I wondered why you would bring up such a topic, in that way, if you weren't also partially convinced by those people who are actually being either ignorant or malicious towards the trans community. Some people are malicious. Others are ignorant, and that doesn't mean they are bad people. You can't please those who are malicious, but it is well worth thinking about trying to get the ignorant on board, in a way that doesn't offend them and turn them into malicious people.
It’s really not. Most of the ignorant are ignorant by choice which is tantamount to malice. If they wanted to learn in good faith they’d have educated themselves already. Instead they place the burden for their education on others and then complain when their ignorance isn’t applauded as open mindedness.
Furthermore if being offended makes them conclude that a group doesn’t deserve basic human decency they were always malicious. It implies a mindset where decency is a weapon, something to be withheld if slighted and granted if appeased. Those people can fuck right off, the argument of the basic morality of treating other humans as we would wish to be treated is wasted on them.
|
United States43625 Posts
On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor.
Trump literally interfered with the aid promised to Ukraine by Congress.
|
On March 11 2022 15:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Trump literally interfered with the aid promised to Ukraine by Congress.
Complete with an official transcript of him "totally not threatening" to withhold aid unless Zelensky worked with Giuliani to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukraine being behind the DNC hack and various Biden nonsense, with a Trump appointed diplomat going on record saying he was told that aid was conditional on Zelensky announcing investigations into both. The only reason it didn't happen was that sane people blocked Trump from doing it.
|
On March 11 2022 14:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 10:41 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. At least once, possibly on multiple times the thread did engage in a pretty thorough debating of such issues. In a vacuum, again, fair enough. Things are cyclical and discussions will tread multiple times over. In this instance after what Plasmid posted, is that the time? IMO no, there’s no real ‘fuck you’ to it. Let’s say someone had shared an experience of being sexually assaulted, and the next post is ‘yeah but what about people wrongfully accused?’ I mean yes, that’s a topic worthy of discussion, at some point, but coming directly after really smacks of minimising or deflecting from their particular experience. I agree with the essence of your post but this is also the politics thread For sharing personal experiences and exchanging condolences it would be more appropriate to post in Blogs
I cannot think of a better use of the politics thread than someone sharing how policy changes are threatening their rights. Cannot think of a worse use of the politics thread than someone expressing anxiety that they might be in a bathroom at the same time as a trans person. If we have to banish someone to blogs let’s make it the second one.
|
On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor.
Okay, now you're just trolling.
|
On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti Putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Aside from the already mentioned Ukraine blackmail there is also the fact that we know Trump pressured the RNC to change the official GOP stance on the Russian annexation of Crimea back in 2016 to lessen support of Ukraine and be more favourable to Russia.
You sir, are a liar and a troll and every time you type you prove it more and more.
|
On March 11 2022 16:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 14:24 BlackJack wrote:On March 11 2022 10:41 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. At least once, possibly on multiple times the thread did engage in a pretty thorough debating of such issues. In a vacuum, again, fair enough. Things are cyclical and discussions will tread multiple times over. In this instance after what Plasmid posted, is that the time? IMO no, there’s no real ‘fuck you’ to it. Let’s say someone had shared an experience of being sexually assaulted, and the next post is ‘yeah but what about people wrongfully accused?’ I mean yes, that’s a topic worthy of discussion, at some point, but coming directly after really smacks of minimising or deflecting from their particular experience. I agree with the essence of your post but this is also the politics thread For sharing personal experiences and exchanging condolences it would be more appropriate to post in Blogs I cannot think of a better use of the politics thread than someone sharing how policy changes are threatening their rights. Cannot think of a worse use of the politics thread than someone expressing anxiety that they might be in a bathroom at the same time as a trans person. If we have to banish someone to blogs let’s make it the second one.
I agree that's a good use of the politics thread. That's precisely why I would encourage plasmid to share how/what policies are affecting him and how he is being affected.
|
The Trump relation with Russia and Putin is certainly a strange one. He made a lot decisions which benfited Russia but he also sanctioned NordStream2, which was clear move against their intrests (Biden lifted those sanctions when he got into office).
I am inclined to think that there was no deep thought behind Trumps actions, no long term strategy. Just "feel of the moment" and "knee jerk" type of reactions.
|
On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor.
Absolutely not, as other people have already explained on this page. This is directly related to why Trump was impeached (for the first time), not to mention all the praising and sucking up to Putin for being a strong authoritarian.
"Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. A phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, 2019 was particularly important—whistleblower Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a participant in the call, and later informed Congress.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
Not only did Trump repeatedly side with Russia, and try to screw over Ukraine, but he directly sabotaged the latter in an effort to impress the former.
|
On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor.
The word "reasonable" does a lot more work in your lexicon than it does mine.
On March 11 2022 14:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 10:41 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. At least once, possibly on multiple times the thread did engage in a pretty thorough debating of such issues. In a vacuum, again, fair enough. Things are cyclical and discussions will tread multiple times over. In this instance after what Plasmid posted, is that the time? IMO no, there’s no real ‘fuck you’ to it. Let’s say someone had shared an experience of being sexually assaulted, and the next post is ‘yeah but what about people wrongfully accused?’ I mean yes, that’s a topic worthy of discussion, at some point, but coming directly after really smacks of minimising or deflecting from their particular experience. I agree with the essence of your post but this is also the politics thread For sharing personal experiences and exchanging condolences it would be more appropriate to post in Blogs
Just gonna take a minute here to highlight how privilege is the ability for someone to separate the personal from the political. If you're not trans and you see everything that's been coming out of Texas, you have the ability to push it away. We should be encouraging the opposite here, seeing how real world policy is actually affecting parts of this community should make you want to listen.
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 11 2022 18:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 16:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2022 14:24 BlackJack wrote:On March 11 2022 10:41 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. At least once, possibly on multiple times the thread did engage in a pretty thorough debating of such issues. In a vacuum, again, fair enough. Things are cyclical and discussions will tread multiple times over. In this instance after what Plasmid posted, is that the time? IMO no, there’s no real ‘fuck you’ to it. Let’s say someone had shared an experience of being sexually assaulted, and the next post is ‘yeah but what about people wrongfully accused?’ I mean yes, that’s a topic worthy of discussion, at some point, but coming directly after really smacks of minimising or deflecting from their particular experience. I agree with the essence of your post but this is also the politics thread For sharing personal experiences and exchanging condolences it would be more appropriate to post in Blogs I cannot think of a better use of the politics thread than someone sharing how policy changes are threatening their rights. Cannot think of a worse use of the politics thread than someone expressing anxiety that they might be in a bathroom at the same time as a trans person. If we have to banish someone to blogs let’s make it the second one. I agree that's a good use of the politics thread. That's precisely why I would encourage plasmid to share how/what policies are affecting him and how he is being affected.
If plasmid wishes to, sure.
Independently I’ve ran into enough anti-trans rhetoric and actual proposed or passed legislation over in the States that I can draw those links myself.
But absolutely for those who aren’t as familiar, then yes that additional context would be constructive.
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 11 2022 13:55 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 13:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 11 2022 11:45 gobbledydook wrote:On March 11 2022 08:51 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 11 2022 07:04 gobbledydook wrote:
If the answer to my questions is essentially fuck you, I don't see any reason to try to continue engaging. So, that's it for this topic for me. It was exceedingly tone-deaf to pivot onto bathroom bans and trans-women in sports from plasmidghost's post on trans people basically having their rights erased. If you'd like to discuss that instead, I would be curious as to what your take is. It's of course extremely wrong to pretend that transgender people don't have rights. I thought there was no point in debating that. There are unfortunately still people who believe that trans people are really just mentally ill or believe that children are being misled into identifying as trans by their woke teachers and parents. There's nothing better we can do other than call them out for their ignorance or malice. To be honest, when you mentioned that whole "what about women who don't want to see penises in their bathroom, shouldn't we respect those women" question, I was having trouble figuring out whether or not you felt that was a reasonable concern. It's not a reasonable concern, as many people explained earlier, and I wondered why you would bring up such a topic, in that way, if you weren't also partially convinced by those people who are actually being either ignorant or malicious towards the trans community. Some people are malicious. Others are ignorant, and that doesn't mean they are bad people. You can't please those who are malicious, but it is well worth thinking about trying to get the ignorant on board, in a way that doesn't offend them and turn them into malicious people.
There are two arguments on this issue that are routinely used to fan the females by the malicious.
The tenor of any wider conversation on the issue is framed by these two, largely bullshit issues. So, fairly or not some of us will jump at hearing those two particular topics invoked, especially right after a trans person has expressed concern at real issues.
And solutions that actually amplify the problems they’re meant to solve. ‘People should use the bathroom that corresponds with their birth gender’ being a neat example. Great so now you’ve got passing trans dudes and dudettes going to the bathrooms that don’t correspond with how they look, which won’t be exactly the supposed problem in the first place.
It is very much worth considering how to get the ignorant on board, but you can only lead a horse to water. If they don’t want to drink well, are they any functionally different from the malicious at that point? They’re certainly difficult to differentiate.
If someone came to me wanting the discussion, it would largely go like this:
1. The sports question - Tricky with no great answers IMO.
2. The bathroom question - Mostly bullshit because x, y, z IMO
3, 4, 5 etc. Actual issues that trans people face, or indeed society at large face, let’s have a look at those while we’re at it.
Incidentally there are times I feel the envelope can be pushed too far and is ultimately counter-productive no matter how well-meaning or how it’s framed. ‘If you wouldn’t be in a relationship with a trans person you’re a bigot’ would be one of those.
As somebody with a mental health disorder, it seems a difficult sell that this doesn’t also qualify. Similarly I’ve seen moves to classify autism in similar ways. I’ve heard good arguments for both, which I broadly agree with, I.e intersection with cultural norms and the environment with neurodivergent brains is the cause of distress. Which, broadly yes I agree, but, well we live in this environment and it’s not wholly changing anytime soon.
Whereas ‘this causes trans people distress and for many transitioning is the best treatment’, yeah skeptics can be won over by their basic compassion there.
|
On March 11 2022 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Absolutely not, as other people have already explained on this page. This is directly related to why Trump was impeached (for the first time), not to mention all the praising and sucking up to Putin for being a strong authoritarian. "Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. A phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, 2019 was particularly important—whistleblower Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a participant in the call, and later informed Congress.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump Not only did Trump repeatedly side with Russia, and try to screw over Ukraine, but he directly sabotaged the latter in an effort to impress the former.
The temporary delay of aid related to Trump's impeachment is less significant than the rest of the Ukraine/Russia policy pursued by the trump admin over the course of 4 years. Most significant was the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, which was a change from prior US policy. No one who is pro Russia and anti Ukraine would provide lethal aid to Ukraine for the purpose of enabling Ukraine to fight Russia in a war. No amount of pointing to Trump's impeachment changes that fact. Not to mention the increased sanctions imposed on Russia. People who are pro Russia don't sanction Russia. These are the more significant and relevant facts.
As for the whole allegation that manafort changed the RNC platform because he was colluding with Russia, it's a myth. Here is an explainer that takes a close look at the hysteria:
When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-what-really-happened-with-the-gop-platform-and-russia
|
Why does an administration agreeing to provide lethal aid, then the head of the administration directly ordering a freeze on aid for blackmail purposes, mean that the head of the administration is pro-aid? Especially when closed door testimony from his aides to Congress indicated Trump only went ahead with the package at the behest of others once he thought Ukraine would come back and buy more.
Saying "Trump is pro-Ukraine" is up there with saying he's "pro-buying Ben Carson a $31,000 dining set." Nothing about his personal rhetoric indicates it and the man is such a hands-off moron it's almost impossible to attribute his admin's actions to him when half the time they have to lie to or mislead him to get him to do things. I mean it's hard to see someone as pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia who was, you know, praising Putin during the start of the invasion.
There's also dragging his heels on Russian sanctions for four weeks past the deadline in 2017. You know, sanctions that passed with veto-proof majorities so he was forced to implement them after signing with a pretty hilarious quote, the man can't help but jerk himself off:
"I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress," he said, but added he was "signing this bill for the sake of national unity."
|
On March 12 2022 01:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Absolutely not, as other people have already explained on this page. This is directly related to why Trump was impeached (for the first time), not to mention all the praising and sucking up to Putin for being a strong authoritarian. "Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. A phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, 2019 was particularly important—whistleblower Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a participant in the call, and later informed Congress.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump Not only did Trump repeatedly side with Russia, and try to screw over Ukraine, but he directly sabotaged the latter in an effort to impress the former. The temporary delay of aid related to Trump's impeachment is less significant than the rest of the Ukraine/Russia policy pursued by the trump admin over the course of 4 years. Most significant was the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, which was a change from prior US policy. No one who is pro Russia and anti Ukraine would provide lethal aid to Ukraine for the purpose of enabling Ukraine to fight Russia in a war. No amount of pointing to Trump's impeachment changes that fact. Not to mention the increased sanctions imposed on Russia. People who are pro Russia don't sanction Russia. These are the more significant and relevant facts. As for the whole allegation that manafort changed the RNC platform because he was colluding with Russia, it's a myth. Here is an explainer that takes a close look at the hysteria: Show nested quote +When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/white-house-spin-putinspricehike
The Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for anything other than far-right partisanry. Do you have any non-partisan sources to support your view?
|
On March 12 2022 01:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:Why does an administration agreeing to provide lethal aid, then the head of the administration directly ordering a freeze on aid for blackmail purposes, mean that the head of the administration is pro-aid? Especially when closed door testimony from his aides to Congress indicated Trump only went ahead with the package at the behest of others once he thought Ukraine would come back and buy more. Saying "Trump is pro-Ukraine" is up there with saying he's "pro-buying Ben Carson a $31,000 dining set." Nothing about his personal rhetoric indicates it and the man is such a hands-off moron it's almost impossible to attribute his admin's actions to him when half the time they have to lie to or mislead him to get him to do things. I mean it's hard to see someone as pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia who was, you know, praising Putin during the start of the invasion. There's also dragging his heels on Russian sanctions for four weeks past the deadline in 2017. You know, sanctions that passed with veto-proof majorities so he was forced to implement them after signing with a pretty hilarious quote, the man can't help but jerk himself off: Show nested quote +"I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress," he said, but added he was "signing this bill for the sake of national unity."
I believe the aid that was temporarily held up was money as opposed to weapons. There's different aid and different sanctions at different times. Some mandated by Congress, some not. The trump admin, on its own and as a change of US policy, provided weapons for Ukraine to use in war against Russia, and increased sanctions on Russia.
On March 12 2022 01:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2022 01:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Absolutely not, as other people have already explained on this page. This is directly related to why Trump was impeached (for the first time), not to mention all the praising and sucking up to Putin for being a strong authoritarian. "Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. A phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, 2019 was particularly important—whistleblower Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a participant in the call, and later informed Congress.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump Not only did Trump repeatedly side with Russia, and try to screw over Ukraine, but he directly sabotaged the latter in an effort to impress the former. The temporary delay of aid related to Trump's impeachment is less significant than the rest of the Ukraine/Russia policy pursued by the trump admin over the course of 4 years. Most significant was the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, which was a change from prior US policy. No one who is pro Russia and anti Ukraine would provide lethal aid to Ukraine for the purpose of enabling Ukraine to fight Russia in a war. No amount of pointing to Trump's impeachment changes that fact. Not to mention the increased sanctions imposed on Russia. People who are pro Russia don't sanction Russia. These are the more significant and relevant facts. As for the whole allegation that manafort changed the RNC platform because he was colluding with Russia, it's a myth. Here is an explainer that takes a close look at the hysteria: When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/white-house-spin-putinspricehike The Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for anything other than far-right partisanry. Do you have any non-partisan sources to support your view?
Non-partisan sources are difficult if not impossible to come by. The examiner is not less reliable than other sources. I don't think it's good to discount the sources that are on the "other side." Btw all the outlets promoting the RNC-platform-change narrative are too busy making money off the associated hysteria to undermine that money train.
|
Ah yes, all the other sources are in on it, so the far right rag is actually the only one we can trust. I've heard that before.
|
On March 12 2022 01:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2022 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 11 2022 14:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 11 2022 13:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Given that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, was anti-Ukraine and pro-Putin while in office, this doesn't surprise me at all. That being said, I still think that most Republican congresspeople are pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, at least just based on how they clapped and cheered for Biden's remarks during the state of the union speech. By any reasonable measure trump was pro Ukraine and anti putin while in office. The lethal weapons support and the sanctions prove as much. Those who are politically inclined to believe in Russian collusion will believe otherwise, but the facts are not in their favor. Absolutely not, as other people have already explained on this page. This is directly related to why Trump was impeached (for the first time), not to mention all the praising and sucking up to Putin for being a strong authoritarian. "Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. A phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 25, 2019 was particularly important—whistleblower Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a participant in the call, and later informed Congress.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump Not only did Trump repeatedly side with Russia, and try to screw over Ukraine, but he directly sabotaged the latter in an effort to impress the former. The temporary delay of aid related to Trump's impeachment is less significant than the rest of the Ukraine/Russia policy pursued by the trump admin over the course of 4 years. Most significant was the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, which was a change from prior US policy. No one who is pro Russia and anti Ukraine would provide lethal aid to Ukraine for the purpose of enabling Ukraine to fight Russia in a war. No amount of pointing to Trump's impeachment changes that fact. Not to mention the increased sanctions imposed on Russia. People who are pro Russia don't sanction Russia. These are the more significant and relevant facts. As for the whole allegation that manafort changed the RNC platform because he was colluding with Russia, it's a myth. Here is an explainer that takes a close look at the hysteria: Show nested quote +When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/white-house-spin-putinspricehike
You quoted the wrong piece -- that paragraph that you quoted is not in the article you linked.
Edit: also, there was no need to write that particular piece. It could have been a one-sentence article: 'inflation is currently high and this hurts Biden's chances at the midterms'. It wasn't particularly informative or well-sourced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
